No doubt this shootist/shooter kept HIS guns because he felt that fearful need to be lethally armed at all times - like family holidays - just in case some bad guy broke down the door to steal his Christmas prezzies. Or, in case he got angry with his family members, so he could more easily gun them down.
I wonder if he was belt-carrying rather than holster carrying with his Santa suit?
It is especially macabre that the shootist dressed as Santa Claus, a fiction figure. Maybe he was just shooting at the traditional partridge in a pair tree and instead accidentally took out the six other people and himself. From the report, he may have used a silencer.
The issue here is weapons in the hands of people who have poor impulse control making them dangerous when they go off their nut and start killing others, or themself in suicides.
And note that this took place next to a large school, thank God not during a time when there were students in attendance.
But I'm sure it seemed absolutely essential to the Santa Shootist that he have his guns with him, that no one better intefere with HIS second amendment rights, and I'm sure that he would have told us had we asked that he was absolutely the best possible judge of when to use his firearms that he was wearing.
Because you just don't hear people claim maybe they shouldn't be armed, no matter how clearly they should not be.
A quick perusal of the international news didn't turn up any other holiday mass shootings in other countries - with or without Santa suits worn by the shootist. I don't believe we can ascribe less holiday stresses to other nations; rather it appears their gun restrictions work to keep firearms away from the trigger fingers of the dangerously stressed.
From MSNBC.com and the wire services:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Motive mystery after 7 shot dead on Christmas Day
Gunman who killed 6, then self at home reportedly was dressed as SantaGRAPEVINE, Texas — Police in a Dallas suburb dubbed the "Christmas Capital of Texas" searched for clues on Monday to explain the apparent murder-suicide rampage that left seven family members dead among holiday presents.The dead — four women and three men, one of them believed to be the gunman — were found late Sunday morning in an apartment living room in the town of Grapevine by police answering a voiceless 911 emergency call, authorities said.
The gunman was said to have been a middle-aged man and a source with knowledge of the investigation told NBC Dallas-Fort Worth that he reportedly was dressed as Santa Claus.
Two pistols were recovered from the home, said Sgt. Robert Eberling of the Grapevine police department, who called it a "gruesome crime scene" and the worst outburst of gun violence in the town's history.
Circumstances of the shooting remained sketchy, but Eberling said it appeared as though the bloodbath unfolded during a family holiday celebration as one man opened fire on six other people in the apartment, then killed himself.
No one was found alive by police arriving at the home, he said.
A community of about 46,000 people some 20 miles northwest of downtown Dallas, Grapevine is known for its wine-tasting salons and was recently proclaimed by the state Senate as the "Christmas Capital of Texas" for its abundance of annual holiday-season events.
"This is obviously a terrible tragedy," said Mayor William Tate. "The fact that it happened on Christmas makes it even more tragic. This appears to be a family situation and anyone who has a family will be incredibly saddened by what happened."
Voiceless 911 call Police dispatched at about 11:30 a.m. local time on Sunday found the bodies in the first-floor living room of a two-story unit in the Lincoln Vineyards apartments.
The 911 caller never spoke to police, and officers did not see the telephone when they arrived, officials said. Eberling said he believed police had to kick in the door to enter.
Many of the nearby apartments are vacant, and police said no neighbors reported hearing anything on a quiet Christmas morning when many people were not around.
Eberling said the victims appeared to have just opened Christmas presents when the shooting started, and there was no visible sign of forced entry or a struggle.
"By all appearances, they're all part of the same family," Eberling said. "It's a gruesome crime scene to say the least, with that many victims in that (small an) area suffering gunshot wounds."
Two of the dead were believed to be in their 50s or 60s, while the others appeared to be young adults, ranging in age from about 18 to 20 years, according to police.
Authorities said the victims were all related but did not immediately identify them and did not speculate on a possible motive for the shooting.
The bodies remained in the apartment well past dark as investigators worked into the early hours of Monday morning processing the crime scene, police said.
Lincoln Vineyards is a middle-income complex near Colleyville Heritage High School, one of the area's most highly regarded schools.
Several neighbors said children frequently played in front of the apartment, and they regularly saw young adults leaving for work.
Vanessa Barerra said the killings were especially disturbing in light of Grapevine's reputation as a safe place to live.
"I did research and chose to live here because of the safety and the school district," she said. "I'm glad my kids weren't here. They're with their dad."
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I'm awaiting your statement that you shouldn't be armed, that you're incapable of handling a gun safely, that you aren't responsible with a firearm. Oh, but of course, you are different.
I'm awaiting your statement that you shouldn't be armed, that you're incapable of handling a gun safely, that you aren't responsible with a firearm.
Greg, I don't carry, openly or concealed, everywhere I go - actually, I don't carry anywhere.
I can handle a firearm safely, and the proof of it is that I'm not nearly as willing as you are to identify a situation as threatening, nor am I insisting on relying on lethal instead of non-lethal force. I trust my ability to be resourceful so that I don't need to shoot someone, and my application for my weapons permit was in relation to a clear danger objectively identified as factual and real by courts and police, not a maybe-it-could-happen-just-in-case because I need to boost my manhood scenario.
I have actually dealt with violent attacks without a firearm quite successfully, one of those was a home intrusion where I did considerable damage to the bad guy - and I was 11 at the time, armed only with a baseball bat from the den closet, and a really aggressive little miniature schnauzer bitch. That gutsy little dog broke of the tip of one of her canine teeth on the bad guy, while I broke bones.
I did it by grasping the tactical advantage of surprising someone in the dark, and by understanding the properties of a narrow window frame as a bottleneck restricting where not one but two very dangerous men with serious criminal mob backgrounds got stuck while entering.
I know how bad they were because my father, an investment banker, was cooperating with a federal RICO operation that was tracking mob money laundering.
I know how badly they were injured because their stitches afterwards were clearly evident, as was the cast one of them was wearing where I broke his arm and wrist.
I am confident that in the interim from when I was 11, I have quite safely and resourcefully gone unarmed in some very dangerous parts of the world without wanting or needing a firearm.
I don't think that can be said about you Greg. You believe you need a firearm for speculative dangers. I do not, and that is just one of the many reasons I'm more responsible and more trustworthy as a firearm owner than you are.
Wow, dog gone. That's an amazing story. An 11 year old using a baseball bat to successfully fight off mob goons who invaded her home and were trying to kill her father.ReplyDelete
Surely you can link to a newspaper account of this incredible incident.
You choose not to carry. Fine--that's your choice. But making that choice doesn't mean that you're any more responsible or logical than I. I don't carry to "boost my manhood." And I don't need the permission of a judge to carry, since I live in a reasonable state. What we see here is that, whether you admit it or not, you believe that any private citizen who carries without consulting a judge or similar first is an irresponsible person. Why don't you just acknowledge that? You'd still be as wrong, but at least you'd be honestly so.
By the way, one cannot do a quick perusal, since to peruse is to read something in detail. Perhaps in your looking through the international news, you should have noted that since the majority of the world's population isn't Christian and doesn't live in a predominately Christian culture, it would be odd for them to celebrate or to get distressed over Christmas.
It's been awhile since I was 11, so no, I don't have the newspaper account.ReplyDelete
In any case, they got away from the attempted break in. and no they weren't trying to kill my father, they appeared to be after possible damaging documents in his home office.
What sent them away to prison were convictions for racketeering that came with life sentences. Those were in the paper.
My first clue that there was something out of the ordinary going on was when in response to my phone call not only the local police showed up, but also the county sheriff, the local cop and the cop from the adjoining municipality, a highway patrol officer and an unmarked car that I was told was the FBI. And my parents whom I had persuaded to go out to dinner leaving me home because I wanted to make some money babysitting my younger sibling. I had persuaded them that they would be close enough that it would be safe.
Dumb idea on my part. No more riding the bus to school or going outside with friends until the whole thing had gone through the courts. Federal protection is incredibly tedious.
I know the extent of the injuries because my father shared them with me when he next saw the bad guys in a deposition prior to the trial. The little schnauzer bitch got one of them in the face and neck. The other one was carrying his left arm in a sling with a cast. So far as I know they were never charged with the break in, just the money laundering.
My father was furious with me for what I did until I pointed out to him how narrow the windows were into his den. They were the crank out variety, relatively narrow. I had to prove to him that I had completely and fully understood the premise of a bottleneck, and that I was brave, but not stupid in assessing the risks I took.
He was also less than thrilled when I decided to go after a news story for my high school paper that involved wading around knee deep in the dark among swarming sewer rats with a camera at 2 a.m. at the age of 16 as well, but he had to acknowledge that I had a knack for pulling off things that appeared to be dangerous without so much as a scratch.
GC wrote:You choose not to carry. Fine--that's your choice.ReplyDelete
No. I obtained a carry permit when there was a specific and objective danger. You don't have that.
But making that choice doesn't mean that you're any more responsible or logical than I.
Yes. It does.
I don't carry to "boost my manhood."
Oh, I think you do. It is obvious in your photo, it is obvious in what you write here. As a woman, I clearly don't feel any need to prove some sort of silly macho manhood.
And I don't need the permission of a judge to carry, since I live in a reasonable state.
Ah, you don't read well for comprehension. I didn't get the permission of a judge to carry. I carried after getting first a civil restraining order from a judge that was then upgraded to a criminal restraining order. Both judge and local police acknowledged there was a clear threat. You don't have a clear threat. You're scared of some fantasy event that is unlikely to happen.
I do read well. You had to have the police and a judge give you permission--not legal permission, but the permission of an authority figure to pat your hand and praise your decision--before you got a license. I talked to friends who own guns and to gun shop owners; I educated myself about firearms, and then I practiced with my own before taking the carry class.
I enjoy firearms as fascinating mechanical devices and as objects requiring skill to use, in addition to their capabilities as weapons. Firearms do not make me more of a man. I do see understanding their use and function as giving me a broader personality, just as learning to play the piano would do. If you weren't so quick to pass judgements on anyone who disagrees with you, you might understand what I mean here, and you might recognize that a firearm isn't necessarily a substitute penis.
And since you brought it up, let's address how people in the Old West carried their guns. I recently received a book titled, "Guns of the American West," by Dennis Adler. In it, there are photographs from the period showing several persons who carried their handguns in cross-draw holsters and some who inserted them into belts. There is also a section about James Butler Hickok that describes him carrying his Colt Navys with the butts forward for a twist draw. Adler's sources about Hickok were the writings of General and Mrs. Custer, who were friends of the man, and Joseph G. Rosa, author of several works on him that have been published by university presses in Kansas and Oklahoma.ReplyDelete
All lies, dog gone. All lies.ReplyDelete
It's too perfect a story that weaves together all your themes.
1. Radical feminism: a womyn-bodied person fought off big tough male-bodied attackers.
2. Anti gun: the 11 year old didn't need a gun to protect her life.
3. Your inflated self image and exaggeration of talent: as an 11 year old, you knew about the tactical considerations of doorways in the context of a home invasion. Puhlease.
You're suspect. As far as made-up stories go, it is pretty creative and it sounds like you put a lot of effort into it. That also makes it pretty sad.
Not at all MA Gunner.ReplyDelete
I demonstrated what I understood by climbing through the window myself, to show it was clear how awkward it was for them. I was caught a bit by surprise because they pushed the screen inwards rather than pulling it out; it somewhat got in the way.
What I remember most about the whole thing was the realization when multiple vehicles showed up in response to my phone call that it wasn't an ordinary burglary. My focus up until that point was more over the notion that my parents would make me pay for the damage to the window frame and screen. I vividly remember thinking that now I was off the hook for the damage.
Cap'n Crunchy has commented here about what he termed force multipliers of weapons like a cane or a stick or a club. It doesn't take great physical strength to do what I did, although a bit of adrenaline is useful.
MA gunner writes:1. Radical feminism: a womyn-bodied person fought off big tough male-bodied attackers.
Your misogyny is showing MA Gunner. I take it for granted that women aren't helpless; apparently you think otherwise.
I've always believed that I could alter situations if I put my mind to it. When I was 3, I got rid of babysitters I didn't like by doing things like putting small frogs in their soft drinks, and stuffing their purses with garter snakes. Tricking them into going outside, and then locking them out. Various other stunts. I made it very clear that if I didn't agree to a babysitter, the baby sitter wasn't staying.
You see, unlike you lot, I know I can completely and decisively alter the balance of power and control in a situation, if I'm sufficiently motivated.
Unlike you lot, I don't need a gun to do it; I have a brain.
As far as I was concerned, this was just another instance of outsmarting adults that I wanted to obstruct and get rid of, not the feminist thing you posit.
Having a functioning brain is a valuable asset, but brains devise tools to perform tasks. A firearm is a particularly good tool for specific jobs. No one to my knowledge is saying that defending oneself without a firearm is impossible. We're just suggesting that when you need a Phillips screwdriver, you can get one, or you can struggle with a flathead or a key or your fingernail. If you don't have a Phillips, you use what you do have. But if you have one, why make things harder for yourself?
A gun is a weapon. To compare it to a tool like a screwdriver is foolish. A gun is made to kill. A screwdriver is made to drive screws. A toaster is made to toast bread.ReplyDelete
How ridiculous do you want to be to lump all those things together? And, what's the point? Are you trying to downplay the seriousness of the purpose of a gun? That's dishonest.
Toasting bread is not serious, neither is driving a screw into the wall.
Well, for Greg Camp, shootist par excellence--who IS a tool--handgunz are like big ol', flame belchin', lead slingin' Swiss Army Knives(TM)*. They give you anywhere from one to a score or more of "options" for dealing with the perps (depending on MAGAZINE CAPACITY). AND they make you FEEL like a man! Win-win-whine.
It turns out that the Swiss Army Knife IS a tool, just like Greg Camp, well, not 'zackly.
What's misogynistic here is telling women what's best for them. You do that quite a bit.ReplyDelete
Let's not get nutty about the word "tool." A tool is an object used to perform a task. No more, no less. A firearm, therefore, is a tool. That you don't like the task that it performs doesn't change its nature.ReplyDelete
GC writes: Let's not get nutty about the word "tool."ReplyDelete
Hey, I'm fine with that so long as every single damn time you use that descriptive term, you include the modifier LETHAL tool, in caps.
Just so we don't try to sneak it by as a euphemism that doesn't identify it for what it really is, the aspect of it that matters.
I don't give a damn about regulating lethal screw drivers because while they can, rarely, be used as a weapon, overwhelmingly they are not, compared to guns.
When you insist they are 'just' tools like any other tool, it is a clear effort to try to minimize and deny what they really are.
What's misogynistic here is telling women what's best for them. You do that quite a bit.
December 27, 2011 3:23 PM"
Whereas you're telling them that they GOTZ TO HAZ TEH GUNZ is what? Paternalistic, Fraternalistic, Stupid. Oh, I'm going with that last one.
Yesterday I was using a screwdriver as a "tool", to check the depth of a "blind hole". Fortunately it didn't, inexplicably, cause the death or me or anyone else. Whew!!
I sorta think that Greg Camp has oneathem mirrors like Stuart Smalley and, before every comment he posts, he looks into and says.
""I'm deluded enough. I'm dumb enough. And doggone it, people at the NRA like useful idiots like me."
"Whereas you're telling them that they GOTZ TO HAZ TEH GUNZ is what? Paternalistic, Fraternalistic, Stupid. Oh, I'm going with that last one."ReplyDelete
Never said that. If a woman asked me for advice, I would tell her to consider her circumstances and use her judgement to decide if she wants to own or carry a gun. I'm not sure how that's paternalistic.
Dog gone wishes to restrict womens' choices, and I trust them to do what they think is right. Which of these is the feminist position?
I have a great deal of respect for tools that are well made and intelligently designed. A quality woodworking tool can accomplish wonders, especially during the holiday giving season. But why you insist on saying that a firearm isn't a tool (without shouting LETHAL, at least) is beyond me. It's a kind of tool, and posting a couple of articles about screwdrivers doesn't change that.ReplyDelete
You're just determined to believe that I'm irresponsible, so you look for any tiny thing that you can blow up into an indiscretion or a fault in judgement, when, in fact, it is not.
Why not do something useful? Share your vast knowledge about safe ownership, carry, and usage of a firearm. Share what you've learned in that combat class that you took.
"Dog gone wishes to restrict womens' choices, and I trust them to do what they think is right. Which of these is the feminist position?"ReplyDelete
Sure you do. Have you ever told a woman that she'd be better off without a gun? If so, why?
"You're just determined to believe that I'm irresponsible, so you look for any tiny thing that you can blow up into an indiscretion or a fault in judgement, when, in fact, it is not."
You're a fucking clown, a dangerous clown, but a clown never the less. Your irresponsibility has been verified, by you, on several threads. Why don't YOU do something useful--if that's even possible.
The whole "tool" thing is dishonest Greg.ReplyDelete
It's actually sort of a word association game we can play with Greg Camp.
Calling a gun, "a tool" is only "dishonest" if, in doing so, someone is trying to equate it's primary use to one that is similar to a can opener, a hammer or a rake. Therefor only a "dishonest tool" (aka/Greg Camp) would use such a term for a gun instead of its formal name, "An inanimate object which sometimes, inexplicably, becomes involved in people getting dead". I hope that clears things up for you.
In case you missed it, I gave you more information about carry techniques in the Old West.
How is it dishonest? I'm not hiding any fact, nor am I even making any claims beyond the simple statement that whatever other categories a gun fits into, it also is a tool. I'm not expressing any opinion as to emphasis, either, though that seems to be what you're concerned about.